negative freebids

[luke warm]

I dislike negative free bids mostly because they dump all the strong hands into double.

 

That goes against the principle of "shape first, hcp later" and is thus bound to create trouble in the long run. Especially if opps raise the overcall with a preempt... typical unlucky expert stuff: endplaying yourself into situations where simple bidding by opps puts you to some rather annoying guesses.

 

There might be some situations where it makes sense to use NFB, but, in general the principle is, in my opinion, unsound.

as with all treatments, this is a matter (imo) of frequency... the gf bids you speak of, those dumped into the double, do they occur more or less often than the 6/7-11 hcp 5pcs hands? iow, do you gain more by being able to bid these hands than you lose by lumping gf into double?

[Cascade]

I dislike negative free bids mostly because they dump all the strong hands into double.

 

That goes against the principle of "shape first, hcp later" and is thus bound to create trouble in the long run.

This is not strictly true.

 

You have a choice of shape first with strong hands or shape first with weaker but constructive hands.

 

Both methods use "shape first, hcp later" with some hands and not with others.

 

In some situations e.g. opening bid - 2-level overcall, weaker hands are much more frequent than GF hands. In other situations perhaps GF hands are more common e.g. opening bid - weak jump overcall. I don't think the decision is clear-cut. Anyone can easily construct the problem situations but in practice having played both methods I am not sure that there is a big issue with which method you play. Both methods work well on some hands and have potential for problems on other hands.

[helene_t]

I started playing NFB before I learned anything about system theory, simply out of the principle that "first double, then bid" is stronger than a direct bid, which applies in other situations. Only later I learned that there was an alternative.

 

With pick-up partners I prefer forcing freebids since they are more standardized. With NFB you have to agree excatly when they apply : in the Netherlands, many people play only a two-level freebid in a suit higher than the opening suit as NFB, Also, you have to agree what a cuebid shows after a minor suit opening and a ajor suit overcall (it makes some sense to allow for a strong hand with length in the other minor), and if you play strong jump shifts in competition.

 

With a regular p I don't care much, I think the advantages and disadvantages are roughly equal. There is a point to be made for playing NFB at matchpoints and FFB at IMPs, as Mike suggested. But then again, at matchpoints overcalls tend to be lighter which makes FFB better.

[david_c]

I like NFBs in situations where my opening bid usually shows a balanced hand. Take the auction 1♣ : (1♠) : 2♥ as an example. If we play Polish Club then I like 2♥ to be a NFB, but if we play Acol then NFBs are not so useful. Better minor is somewhere in the middle, and I would be happy with either treatment. In contrast, after a major-suit opening I don't like NFBs at all.

 

But this is assuming the methods have to be natural. If your partnership can handle transfers, I think that's much better, no matter what your opening bid means. ["Switch" is great, particularly after 1m : (1♠).]

[sfbp]

I dislike negative free bids mostly because they dump all the strong hands into double.

 

That goes against the principle of "shape first, hcp later" and is thus bound to create trouble in the long run. Especially if opps raise the overcall with a preempt... typical unlucky expert stuff: endplaying yourself into situations where simple bidding by opps puts you to some rather annoying guesses.

 

There might be some situations where it makes sense to use NFB, but, in general the principle is, in my opinion, unsound.

 

You hit the nail on the head!

 

The NFB is the perfect way to bid the one-bid hand. It shows its shape in a way (immediately) that you may be otherwise waiting until tomorrow before partner finds out you had it. eg

 

♠632 ♥5 ♦95 ♣JT97642

 

Partner opens 1♥, RHO bids 1♠ (so opps have the boss suit already)

 

Bid 2♣ and watch opps' faces when partner makes a disciplined pass :) Over and over I have witnessed the NFB itself be the last makeable contract by either side.

 

Doubling simply says, I have some values but I can't bid them right now. If the opponents have got lots of cards, then I want to know it - it helps me bid my hand. The fear of being preempted is only real with a pickup partnership or where we don't have methods to know which of our own subsequent doubles are penalty (nearly all). Generally them bidding gives us a chance to double them for penalty as well as bidding our own hands.

 

Haven't you ever wondered why it is right to have a whole variety of strong bids (all the forcing freebids) but only one weak bid, in competition - when the strong bids are not that frequent?

 

How many times *have* you passed because you had to?

 

LukeWarm's point is about frequency. Have more bids for more frequent hands, and have a single bid for the less frequent ones.

 

The biggest problem with NFB, in my opinion is that, just as with weak jump shifts, people make them on hands which are too good. The rule I use, if you think partner might need to bid, then it's not suitable for an NFB on your hand. I also don;t like them at the three level, because to be safe, you now have to have more values, which runs counter to the principle of bidding quickly to shut partner up.

 

Stephen

[Chamaco]

I play:

 

1. Limited openings (Precision)

2. Transfer response after a 1-level overcall

3. NFB after a 2-level overcall

 

Requirements for a NFB:

a. Good and/or long suit (pard will pass with 1-2 trumps)

b. NOT A BAD hand: NFB is constructive, say 8-9 losers, and includes invitational hands.

c. NFB occurs only at level 2 (level 3 always GF)

d. we play NFB only after 1D opener (not 1M)

 

What does responder do with a GF hand ?

a. Nondescript hand (no good suit, no extra shape): it doubles

b. Single suiter: bids at 3 level

c. 2 suiters: cuebids

d. good hands with support: FJS

 

Obligation of opener after a NFB:

Opener ALWAYS raises with 3+ card support. With extra shape and/or good controls etc etc, he might choose to raise directly to game.

If opener makes a simple raise, responder shall take the final decision.

 

 

What does responder do with a real bad hand ? (say 10+ losers)

If overcall was at level 1, he'll transfer, but if overcall was at level 2 he shall pass. Oh well, I know bridge is a bidder's game, but some times passing is not a tragedy

 

What about the problem of "dumping all good hands in the double" ?

 

This is not strictly true: this will occur only after a 2-level overcall, AND, it will happen for hands WITHOUT specific shape/honors concentration.

So yes, we lose the chance to show a featureless 5 card suit, but often this is not a tragedy...

[Finch]

I play in two regular partnerships.

One of them plays 2-major ONLY as a NFB (anything else is forcing, jumps fit*). The other plays what I think is the more common style, which is forcing free-bids.

 

Having got through a lot of boards in both styles over the years, I don't feel very strongly about which is better; both work as long as the partnership understands what it is doing.

 

I certainly don't play NFB the way Stephen describes.

The NFB partnership plays 2M as a sort of 'textbook' weak two, albeit possibly a 5-card suit. Vulnerable, something like KQ109xx with nothing outside would be an absolute minimum. There are quite a lot of hands where I'd bid 2M whether it's forcing or not (but then even when I play 2M as forcing, it's not as strong as mikeh plays it).

 

To put the other side of the coin, to us the advantage of the NFB is that it clarifies the meaning of double! It's been suggested that playing double as either 'standard' take-out or strong makes the subsequent auction difficult; but playing double as either 'standard' or a long weak suit gives at least as many problems. In practice, I simply compete a little less often in the non-NFB partnership.

 

yes, the next hand raising is a problem, but playing NFBs can give you an advantage. If it starts 1D (1S) x (2S), or 1D (2C) x (3C) or whatever, partner has much less idea whether to compete in a major than if you've already shown a decent suit there. IN fact, the auction 1D (2C) is one of the best to play 2M as non-forcing, as double doesn't traditionally promise both majors, and it's very hard for partner to describe his hand properly if you could have a weak hand with a long major or a normal take-out double.

 

Playing NFBs at the 2-level, and playing 3-major as natural, strong, game forcing, the 'strong' hand-type that goes into the double is usually a 5-card suit. Partner is free to rebid, say, 3NT with a long minor and I don't have to guess whether to pull to my long major or not. The main hand type you lose out on is a strong 2-suiter.

 

*actually we play a combination of transfers and/or lebensohl in some auctions, but that doesn't change what's going on in the major.

[whereagles]

You have a choice of shape first with strong hands or shape first with weaker but constructive hands.

Well, I see it like this:

 

1♣ (1♠) dbl/2♥

 

NFB:

- 2♥ shows shape and strength. 5 hearts, 7-11 hcp (more or less).

- dbl shows almost nothing! It can be 4 hearts and 7+hcp, or 5 hearts and 12+hcp, or any strong hand. It doesn't show neither strength nor shape precisely.

 

Standard:

- 2♥ shows shape and strength as well, only stronger.

- dbl shows 4 hearts and 7+hcp, and probably some diamonds as well. It's shape and strength as well.

 

So, while NFBs may work well when they come up, standard seems much more flexible because you don't get messed up with a strong hand.

[sfbp]

I certainly don't play NFB the way Stephen describes.

 

Oh well, I never claimed what I think the majority are doing. I simply argue that logically this is what NFB *should* mean.

 

Somehow I feel a thread on "iinfinite doubles" coming on.....

 

Cheers

 

Stephen

[Codo]

I don´t see any reason for not using NFB.

Cascade put it in fine words: There are hands, where they win and hands, where they loose. Same could be said about Stephens concept of antiforcing Freebids.

 

If you double with hands, which are too weak for a direct 2 bid, you overload the double as much as you do, if you use NFB.

F.E:After 1 Club (1 Spade),

you cannot handle. xx,KQJxxx,xxx,Qx without doubling first and bid Hearts later- or double and sit quite after

1 Club (1 Spade) X (3 Spade)

pass pass.

 

This is as bad as when you have the same hand, but wiht the ace of Spades extra. Then the advocats of NFB do have a problem and the FFB crew is happy.

 

The argument, that you overload the double is simply not true. You always have limited space to show an unlimited number of hands. This is true in any situation and NFB are not doing better in this area then FFBs, but exactly the same.

 

So, it is still the problem, Luke pointed out: What will happen more frequent and what will be more costly to miss?

To miss a game is surely much more expensive, but nfb do happen more often and it is easier to bid with gf strength after strong preempts from the opponents then with an invitational hand.

 

Stephens concept of antiforcing Free bids has more downsides then upsides for me.

If you alert your bid to the opps, you will seldom stop them from bidding and as you have to show all hands with invitational or GF values without the use of the no jumpl suit bids, you will overload all other bids. Of course, this is makable, I just do not believe, that it is superior.

[Codo]

You have a choice of shape first with strong hands or shape first with weaker but constructive hands.

Well, I see it like this:

 

1♣ (1♠) dbl/2♥

 

NFB:

- 2♥ shows shape and strength. 5 hearts, 7-11 hcp (more or less).

- dbl shows almost nothing! It can be 4 hearts and 7+hcp, or 5 hearts and 12+hcp, or any strong hand. It doesn't show neither strength nor shape precisely.

 

Standard:

- 2♥ shows shape and strength as well, only stronger.

- dbl shows 4 hearts and 7+hcp, and probably some diamonds as well. It's shape and strength as well.

 

So, while NFBs may work well when they come up, standard seems much more flexible because you don't get messed up with a strong hand.

If you restrict your X to: 4 hearts 7+ HCPs, may have some Diamonds,

then you are stuck with xxx,xx,KQJTxx,xx, because you have no bid.

And: the strength of the double is nearly unlimited.

 

If you play NFB, the double will show several handtypes, including the normal take out 6+ HCPs AND some strong 5card suits. This is a disadvantages.

But if you don´t use NFB, it is exactly the same. You may choose to put some one-suiters into your double, or you have to put them into your pass. Both is as good or as bad as it is using nfb.

[sfbp]

Stephens concept of antiforcing Free bids has more downsides then upsides for me.

If you alert your bid to the opps, you will seldom stop them from bidding and as you have to show all hands with invitational or GF values without the use of the no jumpl suit bids, you will overload all other bids. Of course, this is makable, I just do not believe, that it is superior.

 

I never indicated that it is necessary to hold a hand as BAD as the one I showed you - just that that is the one that in my limited experience showed the maximum profit.

 

I think it is critical to establish an upper limit to a NFB, and also to restrict them to the 2-level.

 

Sure, most of the time it will be 6-8 points, and most of the time you will not get a *bad* result from passing it. I started to look in BRBR, and the very first hand I popped up was a perfect example. Everyone going down in 4H, and 2H made 3 scoring 80%.

 

It's just arithmetic whether you are in the game zone. Trumps and HCP. If partner knows the upper limit to your hand, he can judge.

 

Stephen

[whereagles]

If you restrict your X to: 4 hearts 7+ HCPs, may have some Diamonds, then you are stuck with xxx,xx,KQJTxx,xx, because you have no bid.

I have a fine bid for that hand, and that is "pass" :)

 

Besides, change it a bit into

 

xxx

Qx

K9xxxx

JT

 

and I might not even want to make an NFB with it :)

[Codo]

yes, I would pass too while using FFBs and that makes a problem in the part score area, because you may never find the fit.

And with your example hand, most NFBidders will pass- at least I will without thinking too much about it.

[Chamaco]

It's just arithmetic whether you are in the game zone. Trumps and HCP. If partner knows the upper limit to your hand, he can judge.

 

Stephen

I agree with the concept of a NFB having a narrow range of strength so that opener can judge whether to move forward or not.

 

It's just that I like to keep that range between "constructive" and "invitational" rather than being closer to a shutout bid.

 

I also agree on the concept that the hcp content is also not critical, and that the hcp requirements decrease as responder has more shape.

 

That's why I prefer to define the requirements in terms of "losers" (using a sort of LTC) rather than hcp.

[Sigi_BC84]

2. Transfer response after a 1-level overcall

Can you describe your methods in more detail? I would be interested.

 

--Sigi

[mike777]

For those of you who often play NFB how do you play?

 

1C=(2D)=2H or

1C=(2D)=3H

[Gerben42]

1C=(2D)=2H or

1C=(2D)=3H

 

First NF, second natural and GF.

[Cascade]

For those of you who often play NFB how do you play?

 

1C=(2D)=2H or

1C=(2D)=3H

2♥ = around 6-11 hcp with (5)6 ♥s

 

3♥ = GF and distributional and at least mildly slammish with six ♥s

 

4♥ = Nat to play - worse than 3♥

[luke warm]

For those of you who often play NFB how do you play?

 

1C=(2D)=2H or

1C=(2D)=3H

2h=7-11, nfb

3h=5pcs with 4p clubs in a gf hand...

[sfbp]

I certainly don't play NFB the way Stephen describes.

The NFB partnership plays 2M as a sort of 'textbook' weak two, albeit possibly a 5-card suit. Vulnerable, something like KQ109xx with nothing outside would be an absolute minimum. There are quite a lot of hands where I'd bid 2M whether it's forcing or not (but then even when I play 2M as forcing, it's not as strong as mikeh plays it).

 

I think it was a while ago that someone (Carl Hudecek) did the work to establish that weak jump shifts by responder (usually of 2♠ or 2♥ over a std opening bid) in direct response without intervention work best when they are REALLY weak, in the 0-6 range. Otherwise the partnershp misses game too often. Your example hand is still well within those parameter, Frances.

 

I view this (2-level NFB) bid as an extension of that. It gives us the ability to play in our assumed 6-2 fit (a priori it's probable that pard has at least doubleton in unbid suits) at the 8-trick level, something that Larry and LOTT and Vernes tell us should be right.

 

Because of the intervention by opp we are able to make it on a bunch of hands where we were previously denied that privilege, and where frequently(unless opps are "smart" enough to overcall on bad 8 or 9 counts at the 2-level) it is in our best interest since opps promise an opening hand when they overcall in a minor. Sort of like the principle of support X - we have three bids instead of 2 available because they intervened.

 

Don't make it too constructive, or you confuse your par with overall par. There are some bids at the top of the range where for various reasons you make a NFB, and pray that you weren't too strong. Similar to the idea that when you overcall against 1NT, the better your hand the better it is to pass and defend.

 

When you don't have a 9 or 10 card fit with partner, the opponents cannot preempt you out of much.

 

What we concluded (this at the table, not in the datamining) is that if he does have a 10-card fit with your nfb, you shouldnt get too wild - most of the time you are pushing them into game instead of playing in your undoubled advance "sacrifice" at the 2 level when the hand is weaker. It's only when he has a rockcrusher in terms of HCP that he should support you to game.

 

Stephen

[Winstonm]

I haven't read all the posts as to not be influenced by others - I do not play negative free bids for a simple reason which is the bonuses in bridge are paid for game and slam bidding, not in precise partscore bidding. The hand that can get screwed to tears by opponents' preemptive action is the game forcing hand that needs a little room to help clarify - if I give the opponents the chance to preempt behind my forced double (what I must do with a good hand), then I've cheated myself out of a descriptive round of bidding.

 

That being said, I do pay homage to the the concept of not getting shut out, even when playing 2/1, by adopting standard Goren-ish 2/1 when RHO interferes, dropping the free bid requirements to around 11. And yes, every now and then I lose the heart suit when I have 9 and partner happens to hold 3 and we could have made 3H.

 

Nothing is perfect.

 

Winston

[Finch]

I think it was a while ago that someone (Carl Hudecek) did the work to establish that weak jump shifts by responder (usually of 2♠ or 2♥ over a std opening bid) in direct response without intervention work best when they are REALLY weak, in the 0-6 range. Otherwise the partnershp misses game too often.

I'm sorry, I simply don't believe this is true as you have stated it.

 

The more strength you have, the more likely you are to have game on. It simply cannot be true that you need to play WJS as 'really weak' otherwise you 'miss game too often'.

 

I only believe this statement if you tack on ....because opener is forced to pass your WJS/NFB.

 

But my partner is allowed to make game tries opposite a WJS or NFB.

[Winstonm]

I have a question for all the NFB enthusiasts. If I understand them correctly - I only tried them for a very short time years ago at mps - the strong hand has to start with double. So, Qx, Axx, xxx, AKJxx after 1D-1S should first double. Now when the auction continues: 1D-1S-X-3S-P-P-? What am I to do? If I double how does partner continue with Kxx, QJxx, AJxx, Qx or x, Axxx, KQJxx, Qxx?

 

However, I admit that the auction: 1m-2H-2S might be best used as a NFB, as with spades and a good hand I can double and later on bid spades. I understand the frequency issue, but being able to bid freely on 7 or 8 points to me is not a big issue if you drop the requirements in competition of a 2/1 being a 1-round force only. That allows you to still bid with the 10-11 point hand.

 

Winston

[sfbp]

The more strength you have, the more likely you are to have game on. It simply cannot be true that you need to play WJS as 'really weak' otherwise you 'miss game too often'.

 

I only believe this statement if you tack on ....because opener is forced to pass your WJS/NFB.

 

But my partner is allowed to make game tries opposite a WJS or NFB.

 

Believe it. It's a raw measurement. If you analyse what happens by point count, the better the responding hand, the worse the overall result.

 

You can interpret it any way you like; so can I. But in terms of imps/matchpoints outcome, when WJS gets too strong, you lose.

 

It's harder to provide this for NFB, because I have only my experience as the guide unless I can separate out the folks who play NFB as non-constructive. Here's a start.

 

From the large dataset, 24 million hand records, the bidding started with a 1 spade overcall (of a minor opening) 11,332 times over 806 boards, when responder held a maximum of 8 HCP, and any of the following holdings in hearts:

 

KJxxxx, KQxxx, KQJxxx,Axxxxx,AJxxxx,AQxxxx

 

Of course I cant filter out precision/polish, but this the OKB dataset 1998-2001 and I promise you there aren't many playing non-standard in the mix there. (6778 times after 1D, 4554 times after 1C might appear to confirm this)

 

Constraining the bidding to 1m (1S) 2H (5929 times) gave by far the best outcome (+1.8 imps, or 65%, 296 times with reasonable SEM's) when opener passed (with our without double by the opps), with the HCP count for the partnership peaking at 20, and barely touching 25. So that appears to confirm my table experience, and the theory about not wanting to be in game.

 

The most frequent outcome of the 2H bid was 4S by the other side (of course on these hands it was anyway), for a reasonable plus (+0.80/50.8%) to the opposition - so the ability of our side to play in 2H was likely affected by the decision of the opponents to pass. But that wasn't known when opener passed the NFB, and the 1S overcaller still had a chance to act again. The most frequent contract by our side was 4H (+0.29/54%). I can't tell what their agreements were.

 

Interestingly a signficant contribution (1/3) to the success of passing the NFB came from playing 2HX :rolleyes:

 

I'm sure there's more there, but this is a start.

 

Stephen